Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'
NewsMax ^ | April 9, 2006 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 04/09/2006 11:11:44 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:

"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."

Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"

But as the Post notes: "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."

Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bushlied; cialeak; libby; noscandal; scooterlibby

1 posted on 04/09/2006 11:11:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I simply cannot figure the Washington Post angle on this. It's so out of character for them not to jump on the trash Bush bandwagon that the moonbats must be gnashing teeth as I type.
2 posted on 04/09/2006 11:17:01 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"

.Joe the LIAR..

3 posted on 04/09/2006 11:20:53 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("fake but accurate": NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Press and the Liberals were screaming for the information at the time. So he gave it to them. Non-story here really. I WISH someone would mention THAT on the air!
4 posted on 04/09/2006 11:22:28 AM PDT by Danae (Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; sure_fine; beyond the sea

I don't trust what they said. There's an agenda hidden here, somewhere.


5 posted on 04/09/2006 11:23:57 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well, once again, NewSmax writes a misleading headline, then doesn't really look at the Washington Post story as it is. It was not a complimentary story with regard to Bush.

You can read it yourself here. I didn't notice a link to the original story at NewSmax. Here's the WaPo link. Go read it yourself and see how NewSmax distorted their article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html


6 posted on 04/09/2006 11:26:58 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611966/posts

A thread on the Washington Post story.


7 posted on 04/09/2006 11:31:29 AM PDT by Daralundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don't think that a presidential de-classification of information can be called a "leak." The President has the authority to declassify information; a "leak" is an unauthorized leak of information. See, e.g., Leaky Leahy.


8 posted on 04/09/2006 11:32:06 AM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I simply cannot figure the Washington Post angle on this.

Perhaps with the work of jveritas and others translating the Iraq document dump, the WaPo knows it's just a matter of very little time before the truth comes out. When faced with the inevitable, they may believe that it's best to now get on the side of the truth.

9 posted on 04/09/2006 11:34:28 AM PDT by Socratic ("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe they're seeing the government going to the 'Rats in November.

And that would be unacceptable! Then the 'Rats (and the MSM slime) would have to start accepting responsibility for all of their accusations, calls for "impeachment" and problems with immigration, budgets, etc. etc.

10 posted on 04/09/2006 11:34:49 AM PDT by manwiththehands (I'm not staying home in November, but I'm only casting one vote: Blackwell for Ohio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife.

I'm not the least bit fooled into thinking The WaPo gang is on the Bush bandwagon. However, it doesn't look as though Wilson has as many friends in the DC media as he'd like.

11 posted on 04/09/2006 11:35:36 AM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is for real? The Washington Post really said this?


Dayum!

The DUmmies must be pooping their pants.


12 posted on 04/09/2006 11:36:18 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Bottom line is that the President took action to Protect America unlike his predecessor. In taking that action he came under attack by the left, his critics and the MSM. To that end he attempted to show the country that Iraq was indeed a threat in that it did in fact try (attempt) to get radioactive material from Niger.... Why hasn't the Press made the same amount of coverage on the fact that Sadaam authorized the use of suicide attackers against the U.S. prior to 9/11.... smoking gun buried by the MSM.....


13 posted on 04/09/2006 11:38:27 AM PDT by tomnbeverly (Liberal Lips Sink Ships....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

You may be right for all I know. That sure hasn't stopped them from harping on non-truth in the past. It's also possible that they have something they'd like to spring in a few weeks, and want to lay down a shred of credibility before they do so, as unlikely that prospect may be.


14 posted on 04/09/2006 11:38:29 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It's also possible that they have something they'd like to spring in a few weeks, and want to lay down a shred of credibility before they do so, as unlikely that prospect may be.

Actually, given their track record, that doesn't seem all that unlikely.

15 posted on 04/09/2006 11:41:32 AM PDT by Socratic ("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well...they USED to be a good paper..at least on the editorial side. It's only been the last couple of years they jumped into the Liberal poll to rival the NYT's for bias.

I can't say why they'd do this now, but I don't find it incredibly unbelievable that they would.


16 posted on 04/09/2006 11:43:07 AM PDT by Soul Seeker ("No Illegal Alien Left Behind Act" - (quote: Jeff Sessions) - 4/6/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I don't agree with you. I read the story from the WaPo and while not "complimentary" to Bush, it is pretty middle of the road which is not their ususal reporting position. The article is not complimentary to Wilson at all and does validate the truth that Bush was authorized to declassify sensitive material. So, this could not have been a "leak." What I don't understand and no one seems to write about is that even after Libby gave this information to Judith Miller at the NYT, they never ran the story. So, this is all just a DemocRAT tempest in a teapot. As the WaPo story says eventually the White House held a briefing for all the media. Probably because Miller never filed the story.


17 posted on 04/09/2006 11:43:12 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Maybe they have seen the handwriting on the NYT's wall. We can only hope.


18 posted on 04/09/2006 11:44:48 AM PDT by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tomnbeverly

Exactly. But the left can't wait until there is another terrorist attack which will sure come if the Rats get the majority again


19 posted on 04/09/2006 11:45:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Daralundy

Thanks for the links. I was looking for the article myself, but couldn't find it


20 posted on 04/09/2006 11:50:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bump


21 posted on 04/09/2006 11:52:14 AM PDT by lowbridge (I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming, like his passengers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
I haven't been able to stand the WP since the late sixties. That was reinforced during the 1990s when Bill Clinton's escapades were deemed unworthy of the true full blown scrutiny that a "Richard M. Nixon's" escapades would have received.

The Post's two main hatchet men against Nixon said they did it all for the country. When it came to Clinton they took a dive. No they weren't active on the staff in the same roles they were around Nixon's time. Still, these were two men to canonized themselves as much as anyone else did.

Where was their interest in the truth, when it came to Clinton? Surely they could have used the income from books deals and movie rights.

What this told me about the WP, as if I didn't know Katheryn Graham's modus operandi already, was that their activities were ideologically driven. Under Clinton they were as well.

I have no love for the Washington Post, and if it should go belly up some day, I'll be somewhere smiling down on the rubble.
22 posted on 04/09/2006 11:52:47 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

...and we will. LOL


23 posted on 04/09/2006 11:53:27 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

They did some excellent articles on the Nature Conservancy corruption.


24 posted on 04/09/2006 11:54:59 AM PDT by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The whole leakgate thing is retarded. If anyone has the authority to "leak" classified information it would be the President.

The President has the authority to decide what should and should not be made public.

It's just like any CEO of a company... if a CEO wishes to say something to the public fine.. but if a line level employee starts talking about how they operate he can be fired.

Why oh why can't we just apply a little common sense.


25 posted on 04/09/2006 11:59:22 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

I should have mentioned that I do not read the WP as a rule. That is something that someone should mention if they're going to trash the paper like I did.

I have never forgotten the antics of the large eastern papers during the Vietnam, Nixon, Clinton and War on Terrorism years.
I hear just enough to know that they are for the most part up to their old antics, and it disgusts me.


26 posted on 04/09/2006 11:59:33 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well media bias is alive and well. I don't read them either but I know about the NC articles because of my property rights activism.


27 posted on 04/09/2006 12:02:09 PM PDT by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

IMO, Nature Conservencies are leftist driven orgainizations that are trying to destroy property rights in the U.S., largely on government funding. Many people don't know that they are gifted with large government grants with which to purchase land. Private donation pale in comparison. Then these lands are ruled by NGOs that answer to no one. They do not stand before the public for election.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad the Post addressed the issue. Any press at all is welcome.


28 posted on 04/09/2006 12:08:22 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

ping


29 posted on 04/09/2006 12:11:26 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BUMP


30 posted on 04/09/2006 12:11:52 PM PDT by kitkat (The first step down to hell is to deny the existence of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It's Bob Woodward's personal influence.

He has insisted that there is no scandal almost from the beginning.

31 posted on 04/09/2006 12:15:32 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I just read your link. What are you talking about? The last line in the article sums it up.


32 posted on 04/09/2006 12:15:38 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I simply cannot figure the Washington Post angle on this.

They are one of the few who are smart enough that they are getting the rope-a-dope on this one and they're trying 'duck' while there's still time to keep the egg off their faces.

33 posted on 04/09/2006 12:16:14 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

I agree.


34 posted on 04/09/2006 12:18:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

I think a lot of people will agree with you on that. I'm not ruling it out myself.


35 posted on 04/09/2006 12:18:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
there was a blurb in the Wall Street Journal Weekend edition, on the OpEd page, to the effect that The Leak that everyone's yapping about is an out-and-out non-issue.

The American-hating-Bush-hating-liberty-hating motormouths have made a big smash with headlines that mean nothing. Now that the cacophany has ceased, my, it's awfully quiet out there.

36 posted on 04/09/2006 12:53:39 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (blah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Dayum!

Smokey from the movie "Friday," is that you?

37 posted on 04/09/2006 1:05:39 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (A nickel bag gets sold in the park. I WANT IN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
The only thing I see in the original article that is negative toward Bush is that his handling of the affair was clumsy.

I think Bush plays rope-a-dope with the press, allowing them to saw off the limb they sit on. I think many hot democrat issues will evaporate just in time for this November.
38 posted on 04/09/2006 1:17:30 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BTTT


39 posted on 04/09/2006 3:41:39 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Socratic
"When faced with the inevitable, [the WaPo] may believe that it's best to now get on the side of the truth."

Why whould they be starting now?

40 posted on 04/09/2006 5:15:04 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Why whould they be starting now?

You're right. Why should I apply ethical standards to THAT rag?

41 posted on 04/09/2006 5:18:37 PM PDT by Socratic ("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde

...it is pretty middle of the road which is not their usual reporting position...

This is on thier editorial page no less...I guess it would have veered left had it been actual reporting.


42 posted on 04/09/2006 5:55:02 PM PDT by Amalie (FREEDOM had NEVER been another word for nothing left to lose...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
At first, I thought it was a typo...

I figured "Washington Times" was the correct answer, but Washington Post....

wow...wonders never cease....

What's up?

43 posted on 04/09/2006 6:03:12 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pointsal; FOG724; All

Thanks for the comments.

I think it would be interesting for folks who participated on this thread to check out another. Fog724 pointed it out to me.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612012/posts


44 posted on 04/09/2006 6:19:16 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
FYI...the statement the MSM has been making:

On July 18, 2003, the administration, facing criticism for the intelligence used to justify the war, declassified an eight-page part of the NIE dubbed "key judgments" and conducted a lengthy background briefing with reporters to discuss it.

“Key judgments" is the operative word here. They were declassified by Tenet in October of 2002, six days after the NIE was complete per the following information:
On October 7, 2002 DCI Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin News Release

Another article:

A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."

Source

A copy of the Key Judgments document can be found here. Warning: .pdf file.

As usual, the MSM gets it wrong.

45 posted on 04/10/2006 6:00:50 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne


Maybe they want take down the NYT and become the new "paper of record?"


46 posted on 04/10/2006 6:58:35 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson